Shark 7... Aye, my point is that the manoeuvre differential between Ta-152H and 109s at high altitude is tiny... If that were truly the case then there would have been no reason for the Ta-152 to have been developed.

As to the manoeuvre value. My quibble isn't with it being the same at all altitudes but with it being 0. I would imagine that a value of 0 there could mess things up in-game. I would set it to 2 as a minimum just to make sure you wouldn't end up with "divide by null" situations.

I understand, the Ta-152H should be far superior at high altitude and probably only 'as good as' a 109 at low. I don't have sources at the moment, but IIRC the Ta-152H was more than capable of outmanuevering most Allied fighters at high altitudes. The 109 should not be anywhere near the high altitude performer of the Ta-152H.

I'd say 109 would manage a manuevre rate of 16-20 at High, but that is just my opinion. Ta-152H would probably rate a 30-36 at high...again my opinion, especially since I have to use the SWAG method not knowing the formula the dev's used.

Shark 7... Aye, my point is that the manoeuvre differential between Ta-152H and 109s at high altitude is tiny... If that were truly the case then there would have been no reason for the Ta-152 to have been developed.

As to the manoeuvre value. My quibble isn't with it being the same at all altitudes but with it being 0. I would imagine that a value of 0 there could mess things up in-game. I would set it to 2 as a minimum just to make sure you wouldn't end up with "divide by null" situations.

I understand, the Ta-152H should be far superior at high altitude and probably only 'as good as' a 109 at low. I don't have sources at the moment, but IIRC the Ta-152H was more than capable of outmanuevering most Allied fighters at high altitudes. The 109 should not be anywhere near the high altitude performer of the Ta-152H.

I'd say 109 would manage a manuevre rate of 16-20 at High, but that is just my opinion. Ta-152H would probably rate a 30-36 at high...again my opinion, especially since I have to use the SWAG method not knowing the formula the dev's used.

While I admit I am not familiar with German aircraft, 30-36 at High sounds completely ridiculous. I could see maybe 20-25 like some of the jets, but 3 times higher than most allied high alt fighters? I doubt it.

JuanG, Well don't forget that it will be facing the utterly unreasonable performance of the P80 Shooting Star- Mvr of 28 at EVERY altitude band? Don't make me laugh.

If we use the P47N as a basis which has Mvr ratings of 17 at every altitude then think the Ta-152 could pretty reasonable be a 24 or 25 alright... It was after all designed as a high altitude fighter with excellent climb and dive characteristics. It was probably the best boom and zoom fighter of the war really.

Out of interest.... Can anyone defend the P80s 28/28/28/28/28/28 etc MVR rating at all altitude bands? This seems weird to me especially compared to the Ki-201

JuanG, Well don't forget that it will be facing the utterly unreasonable performance of the P80 Shooting Star- Mvr of 28 at EVERY altitude band? Don't make me laugh.

If we use the P47N as a basis which has Mvr ratings of 17 at every altitude then think the Ta-152 could pretty reasonable be a 24 or 25 alright... It was after all designed as a high altitude fighter with excellent climb and dive characteristics. It was probably the best boom and zoom fighter of the war really.

Out of interest.... Can anyone defend the P80s 28/28/28/28/28/28 etc MVR rating at all altitude bands? This seems weird to me especially compared to the Ki-201

I changed the P80's ratings in all my scenarios to 24 at all bands, and likewise increased the Japanese jets to comparable levels.

Thus, as I understand this is based on my CV Variant, you wont need a rating of 36 to compete with the P-80s.

Shark 7... Aye, my point is that the manoeuvre differential between Ta-152H and 109s at high altitude is tiny... If that were truly the case then there would have been no reason for the Ta-152 to have been developed.

As to the manoeuvre value. My quibble isn't with it being the same at all altitudes but with it being 0. I would imagine that a value of 0 there could mess things up in-game. I would set it to 2 as a minimum just to make sure you wouldn't end up with "divide by null" situations.

I understand, the Ta-152H should be far superior at high altitude and probably only 'as good as' a 109 at low. I don't have sources at the moment, but IIRC the Ta-152H was more than capable of outmanuevering most Allied fighters at high altitudes. The 109 should not be anywhere near the high altitude performer of the Ta-152H.

I'd say 109 would manage a manuevre rate of 16-20 at High, but that is just my opinion. Ta-152H would probably rate a 30-36 at high...again my opinion, especially since I have to use the SWAG method not knowing the formula the dev's used.

While I admit I am not familiar with German aircraft, 30-36 at High sounds completely ridiculous. I could see maybe 20-25 like some of the jets, but 3 times higher than most allied high alt fighters? I doubt it.

Remember though, the faster you go, the less you turn. It actually makes sense for the Jets to be less manueverable than the propellor driven a/c. Trouble is, the MVR rating in this game seems to be more of a catch all number, not just the turning ability. It's hard to balance it (or make sense of it for that matter).

Jets are actually less manueverable than piston engined aircraft. Also, monoplanes are actually less manueverable than biplanes, etc. Of course, the fact that you can turn a 360 in half the radius of a jet isn't going to change the fact that you can't keep up. There is one instance of a pair of AD-1 Skyraiders taking down a MiG-17, but the MiG made the mistake of engaging at low altitude and low speed, the perfect conditions for the Skyraiders. In other words, it seems to be the exception, not the rule.

Like I said, SWAG based on the stats of other aircraft in the official DB. I really have no clue about the formula for the MVR numbers.

Shark in CV enhanced the Vhigh Rating for tempest is 8 and p-51h is 15

Those are unaltered from the normal values.

I've only just noticed the Ta-152 has a very high max speed - generally planes like these have a trend towards lower manuever values, as speed compensates for it. Maybe around 17-18 is fine afterall. This still makes it notably superior to the Bf-109 and Fw-190, being faster and having 2-4 points more manuever.

A few questions: 1. Are you really saying the Bf109s were more manoeuvrable than the Zero up high? Neither they nor the Zeroes were good high-altitude performers but I find it difficult to thinkof th 109 as being more manoeuvrable.

2. The high altitude differential between your 109s etc and the Ta-152H seems far too small..

3. Bombers with manoeuvre of 0 ???

1. The way I understand it, the Bf-109 was decent at low levels, but lacked power and manuevre at higher altitudes.

2. Ta-152H was designed as a high altitude interceptor. It generally shoudl perform worse at lower altitudes the way I understand it.

3. Should even the heavies be around 2-4?

Basically Speaking the Me-109E was by far best turning fighter of the 109 series, Followed by 109F, 109G2, 109g6, 109g10, 109k4. However far as turn radius goes, its barely larger then a Spitfires turn radius. Also power depends on the model, example most 109s flew quite well from 0-5,000feet up to 24,000 feet. Climb rate was outstanding, as well as speed. However turn radius was on par with the spitfire till the 109g2 model, after that it started getting terrible. Basically 109k4 was an interceptor able to do 450mph, however in a dogfight with a 109e based on turn radius, E model wins hands down.

Ta-152 also was an extreme high alt interceptor, able 450+ at 40,000 feet, where 109s rarely went above 25,000 because the climb rate just dropped off as well as speed.

Ta-152 I believe does 330 on the deck, 400mph at 15,000, 425 at 23,000 and 450 above 45,000. Turn radius was surprisingly small at alt based on its long wings.

if needed I have all the stats on every plane, including turn radius etc, not sure how that breaks down in game.

One problem with discussing high altittude performance is that you have to be careful not to confuse "performance" with "manuverability".

The P-47 for example made its name as a high altittude fighter, yet it actually wasn't particularly manouvable up high (indeed it couldn't out-turn an axis fighter at any altitude.) Instead it had great "Performance" at high altittude due to it's 3 stage super-charger. It could quite happily sit 5 or 6 or 7 thousand or more feet above the heavies and while the Axis fighters struggled their way up through the thin high altittude atmosphere, it would drop down, lay in a burst with its 8 x 50 cals then shoot back up-stairs again.

I haven't researched the Ta-152, but looking at its elongated wings I would think its strengths would probably be rate of climb and power at alt rather than pure turning ability.

One problem with discussing high altittude performance is that you have to be careful not to confuse "performance" with "manuverability".

The P-47 for example made its name as a high altittude fighter, yet it actually wasn't particularly manouvable up high (indeed it couldn't out-turn an axis fighter at any altitude.) Instead it had great "Performance" at high altittude due to it's 3 stage super-charger. It could quite happily sit 5 or 6 or 7 thousand or more feet above the heavies and while the Axis fighters struggled their way up through the thin high altittude atmosphere, it would drop down, lay in a burst with its 8 x 50 cals then shoot back up-stairs again.

I haven't researched the Ta-152, but looking at its elongated wings I would think its strengths would probably be rate of climb and power at alt rather than pure turning ability.

Actually quite opposite, the rate of climb was terrible compared to 109 and 190, the engine was made for extreme high alt engagements, so anything below 20,000 feet the Ta-152 couldn't manage to do anything but run on Wep. However its endurance was just amazing, ability to fly over 450mph above 30,000 feet, I believe the cruise speed was over 300mph and it could pretty much out turn anything up there. Now P47 did its job amazingly well, however given the Ta-152 came out years later, you can't compare either plane. I say if the Ta-152 was mass produced it would of been the dogfighter while Me262's do the bomber busting. However with such small engagements in the Ta-152 its tough to say how good it really was. Same with the Do-335, except Do-335 was amazing climber and turn fighter at 30k except like all other designs it wasn't produced.

So do you think the stats in the FW-190 thread are correct The TA-152 is included

The weapons are incorrect - Fw190a3 had 2x MG FF's which would be lower damage then the MG 151 - with 60rpg 2x MG 151's 20mm with better damage, and faster firing rate with 250rpg

Fw190d9 has 2x MG 151's 250rpg and 2x 13mm with I believe.. 325rpg? (not sure on the 13mm) The D9 also carried max a 550kg bomb or 220 liter drop tank.

Ta-152 looks fine, However normal range is pretty off by a lot, Ta-152 had excellent endurance and fuel capacity, I know the fuel was double what the 109/190 carried internal. I would honestly say Fw190a3 has Normal Range of 7, and Fw190d9 has normal range of 6 or 5. Also I believe the Rate of climb should be around 2200 or 3200 with WEP on. So not sure how that factors in game.

Also slight suggestion changing Fw190a3 to Fw190a5 - which was used pretty extensively over the A3/a4 model

One problem with discussing high altittude performance is that you have to be careful not to confuse "performance" with "manuverability".

The P-47 for example made its name as a high altittude fighter, yet it actually wasn't particularly manouvable up high (indeed it couldn't out-turn an axis fighter at any altitude.) Instead it had great "Performance" at high altittude due to it's 3 stage super-charger. It could quite happily sit 5 or 6 or 7 thousand or more feet above the heavies and while the Axis fighters struggled their way up through the thin high altittude atmosphere, it would drop down, lay in a burst with its 8 x 50 cals then shoot back up-stairs again.

I haven't researched the Ta-152, but looking at its elongated wings I would think its strengths would probably be rate of climb and power at alt rather than pure turning ability.

The P-47 was a flying tank. You are right about it having pure power, but it also had a lot of armor that let it survive head on attacks with Axis fighters as well.

If you need any stats for any german aeroplane, feel free to contact me via pm I have just about every aircraft with what I believe is the correct actual stats for the luftwaffe planes. Just keep in mind anything beyond 1945 in terms of aircraft like Ta-152 etc are pretty sketchy with no real hard proof.

Instead it had great "Performance" at high altittude due to it's 3 stage super-charger. It could quite happily sit 5 or 6 or 7 thousand or more feet above the heavies and while the Axis fighters struggled their way up through the thin high altittude atmosphere, it would drop down, lay in a burst with its 8 x 50 cals then shoot back up-stairs again.

If that so means that P-47 version had a big advantage in energy/speed at that altitude. That should be shown in maneuverability since the game doesn't have other altitude variable fields.

Instead it had great "Performance" at high altittude due to it's 3 stage super-charger. It could quite happily sit 5 or 6 or 7 thousand or more feet above the heavies and while the Axis fighters struggled their way up through the thin high altittude atmosphere, it would drop down, lay in a burst with its 8 x 50 cals then shoot back up-stairs again.

If that so means that P-47 version had a big advantage in energy/speed at that altitude. That should be shown in maneuverability since the game doesn't have other altitude variable fields.

Pretty much so, the P-47 would basically gain maneuverability the higher it goes, up to 35,000k far as I know as well as speed. So roughly where some aircraft like the P-51 and bf109 clock out at 25,000 feet, the P-47 still gains in performance which would be exchanged for manueverability and speed.

I think only key area that would drop off for the P-47 is in fact climb rate, I know 90% of aircraft didn't have a climb rate past 25,000ft. However performance was still there for example the Ta-152 which was designed for that alt.

Spitfire Vb has 32 manuever and Me109 24 thats not right...I thought they would be pretty close with a small advantage to the spit at lower altitudes.

It would most likely be Spitfire Vb 32 and Me109F 30 - because all the spits/109s turn radius were almost spot on, just the spitfire was slightly better. That goes from the 109e up to 109k4 and Spitfire mark 1 to Spitfire 14. However spitfire 16 was a complete change aerodynamically and actually improved on the spit14, where all 109s gradually lost Maneuverability. Only the 109f and 109G2 actually stayed the same turn radius with improved engines, where 109g6 actually had a larger turn radius, but improved engine and weapons enabled it higher alt engagements.

Hey Che, im going to email you some of my books to use for aircraft information, im having trouble right now because basically I know the Max distance Luftwaffe planes can fly with a drop tank, however Im not sure about the other values of them.

Also some of the top speeds are off a little bit, do you want me to change them or leave them be?